Search Results for: Baliunas

Muir Russell and The Peer Review Three

We’ve all had an interesting time trying to get a straight answer as to the eleven publications said by Oxburgh to have been selected on the advice of the Royal Society. After much evasion, Trevor Davies has admitted that he selected them, using the references in the CRU submission to the SciTech Committee as a […]

Mann versus the Provincial Parrots

Roman M and TomRude have observed an interesting letter writing campaign in which Michael Mann contests adverse opinion in provincial newspapers, accusing the letter writers of being “parrots”. Today (July 31, 2010), Mann sent the following letter to the Saint John (New Brunswick) Telegraph Journal objecting to a letter published July 30. Similar letters were […]

Overpeck’s “Hammer”

One of the curious aspects of IPCC peer review procedure is that the ultimate authority for accepting or rejecting comments by peer reviewers rests with the IPCC authors, as opposed to the Review Editors. Review Editors are supposed to see that authors respond to Review Comments, but don’t follow up to see that it’s actually […]

Mannian CPS: Stupid Pet Tricks

David Letterman sometimes has a segment entitled “Stupid Pet Tricks”, which is an apt title for today’s post – more parsing of Mannian CPS, recently discussed here. With helpful contributions from Jean S, UC and Roman M, I can now pretty much replicate Mannian CPS, but only through a variety of devices that fall into […]

The Arabian Splice

One of the reasons why scientists have been so quick to use tree ring information despite all the problems is that, for the most part, there is excellent dating control on tree ring chronologies, something which can be problematic in other proxies. Today I want to document some notes on dating the Arabian Sea G […]

Juckes and the Mitrie Project

Peter Kuikman, the secretary of the WAB program (which finances the Mitrie project), is reported as saying that the Mitrie project was funded 89,000 euro (US$113,000). Let’s step back for a moment and look at the terms of reference for the project and see if the Dutch government is getting what they contracted for.

KTH, Stockholm Conference

On Sep 11-12, 2006, KTH (Royal Institute of Technology) in Stockholm, Sweden hosted an international seminar on climate variability (seminar website here). The seminar had 16 speakers from 14 countries and was attended by 120 people. It was organized by Peter Stilbs and Fred Goldberg, who extended great hospitality to the presenters. Anders FlodstràƒÆ’à‚⵭, President […]

Thacker’s “Sources”

Last summer, after Paul Thacker published a critical article about me in Environmental Science & Technology (also try here), I contacted three of the people prominently quoted in the article – Mahlman, Trenberth and Famiglietti – to obtain confirmation of what they said. As you will see below, their responses are extraordinarily lame. None of […]

D’Arrigo et al. on Bristlecone Calibration

D’Arrigo, Wilson and Jacoby [2006] represents state-of-the-art in dendrochronology and is hot off the press. It is unique among such studies in using a considerable amount of up-to-date data and is relatively candid about its results. I’ll try to discuss it in more detail. Here I want to pick up on one issue that featured […]

Review of Osborn and Briffa [2006]

Osborn and Briffa [2006] , published today in Science, cannot be considered as an “independent” validation of Hockey Stick climate theories, because it simply re-cycles 14 proxies, some of them very questionable, which have been repeatedly used in other “Hockey Team” studies, including, remarkably, 2 separate uses of the controversial bristlecone/foxtail tree ring data. Also […]